Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Overfishing? How many fish can be taken out of small lakes
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
salish
Member
PostWed Feb 23, 2005 3:53 pm 
Blake wrote:
Brian Curtis wrote:
Deep or shallow lakes can hold freshwater shrimp. Water chemistry and aquatic vegitation are more important to shrimp then water depth.
What are some of the visible indicators of a presence of freshwater shrimp, other than seeing the organisms themselves?
I think what Brian was saying about aquatic vegitation above (weed beds) and his subsequent reference to Oldtimers response about red and/or orange colored flesh is about as close to a definitive clue as you'll get on how to tell if a high lake has a supply of scuds (shrimp). I don't know that I've ever been able to actually spot freshwater shrimp in high lakes.

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gj
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Posts: 78 | TRs | Pics
gj
Member
PostWed Feb 23, 2005 6:08 pm 
Can you not also see scuds in the bellies of fish that you do take?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Odonata
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Aug 2002
Posts: 306 | TRs | Pics
Odonata
Member
PostWed Feb 23, 2005 7:16 pm 
Jonathan, thats funny. Every year on the first couple of raft trips to clear, deep lakes I have minor bouts with vertigo. It is unnatural to be suspended so far over the ground! I am a good swimmer and it still gets my attention sometimes. I probably have some wuss gene that causes that shakehead.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
salish
Member
PostWed Feb 23, 2005 7:56 pm 
gj wrote:
Can you not also see scuds in the bellies of fish that you do take?
Oh, of course you can. I guess I sort of meant to say that also, since it was part of Brian's original message. Forgot to highlight that, I guess. I was also thinking more in terms of spotting scuds themselves or evidence of same in the environment. Then when examining contents there's always the inevitable mass of goo with or leg or eyeball sticking out of it smile.gif

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jamin Smitchger
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 673 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pullman
Jamin Smitchger
Member
PostTue Jun 21, 2005 5:53 pm 
1. I just went to a lake (pond) this past sunday and caught nine trout with my dad. The lake was about 250' by 250' and the trout were biting like crazy. All the trout were small and the largest was about 8.5 inches. This lake is located at about a thousand feet and has excellent habitat. Were the fish small because the lake was small, overpopulation, or what. Do bigger lakes produce bigger fish? This pond was populated by cutthroat, rainbow, and brook trout with cutthroat being an estimated 20%of the population, rainbow 35%, and brook trout about 45%. 2. I have heard that beaver ponds are often excellent places to catch fish, yet most of the beaver ponds I come across are fishless. Do beaver ponds have to be located on streams that already contain trout? I assume so. If so, how do you determine which trickles on the map have enough water to contain fish. I once found a beaver pond that had fish. I went back in midsummer and found that it was almost entirely dried up and only contained about a foot of water. Do you guys think that all of the fish died. Since beaver ponds tend to fade after a few years, How many fish would it be acceptable to take out of one.smile.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Jun 22, 2005 9:08 am 
You can generally tell if a lake is overpopulated by the condition of the fish. If they are skinny with large heads you know the lake is overpopulated. Catching three species in a lake like that means they are certainly naturally reproducing. Bigger lakes do not produce bigger fish. Most of the food in a lake grows in water that is 10' deep, or less. So you can have a big deep lake with a bottom that slopes straight down that will never grow large fish because the fish will be largely dependent on terrestrial insects for food. A small lake can have 100% of its area in production and often smaller lakes produce larger fish. Beaver ponds are often stocked so do not need to be in streams that contain fish. If a pond drains down in the summer the fish will survive if they have someplace they can go, like a stream. Otherwise they will die. I'm not sure what you mean by beaver ponds fading after a few years. Dams can occasionally blow out or be taken out by logging (my old favorite suffered this latter fate) but almost all the ponds I first fished 25 years ago are still there.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Lead Dog
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 790 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kent Wa
Lead Dog
Member
PostSun Jun 26, 2005 1:13 pm 
On a weeks hike I might keep 2.

My hair's turning white, my neck's always been red, my collor's still blue. Lynard Skynard
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
aestivate
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 199 | TRs | Pics
aestivate
Member
PostSat Jul 09, 2005 7:00 am 
Jamin Smitchger wrote:
1. But let us say you have a lake that has a carrying capacity of 20 fish. You take out five, the next two guys take out ten, and the guy after him takes out 5. There are lakes like this which have very small reproducing populations. smile.gif
Just go ahead and catch 'em all. In a lake of the size you're describing, those fish were introdued anyway. Most alpine lakes were devoid of fish before people started planting 'em. Give the amphibians a break. In practice I suspect it is difficult to fish a population to extinction if it is naturally reproducing, since I would imagine there are likely to be lots of small fish (fry) for every one that is big enough to catch and keep. You're just freeing up real estate for these guys. If the pop is not reproducing, that is, if all the fish are of some planted variety that cannot reproduce in the setting, hell, go ahead and fish 'em out, unless you want to leave some for the next guy to finish the job. What you've got is just some misleadingly natural-looking version of an artificial trout pond. Like the kind they have in Japan where you pay by the hour.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostSat Jul 09, 2005 10:09 am 
aestivate wrote:
Just go ahead and catch 'em all. In a lake of the size you're describing, those fish were introdued anyway. Most alpine lakes were devoid of fish before people started planting 'em. Give the amphibians a break.
Studies in the North Cascades National Park showed that fish stocked in low densities have no measurable effect on amphibians or zooplankton. IOW, we aren't harming amphibians by stocking fish in low densities as we have been for quite some time. Over stocking or reproducing fish are another matter. They have been shown to harm some amphibians and larger zooplankton. That's why only fish that can't reproduced are being stocked and efforts to reduce or eliminate over reproducing populations are underway.
Quote:
In practice I suspect it is difficult to fish a population to extinction if it is naturally reproducing, since I would imagine there are likely to be lots of small fish (fry) for every one that is big enough to catch and keep. You're just freeing up real estate for these guys.
This is absolutely true.
Quote:
If the pop is not reproducing, that is, if all the fish are of some planted variety that cannot reproduce in the setting, hell, go ahead and fish 'em out, unless you want to leave some for the next guy to finish the job. What you've got is just some misleadingly natural-looking version of an artificial trout pond. Like the kind they have in Japan where you pay by the hour.
The reproducing populations are the harmful ones, not the stocked ones. Proliferation of illegally stocked warm water fish and other factors have essentially eliminated quality trout fishing in low lakes. High lakes are the last place where you can go catch fish that are in wild environments that grow to be like wild fish. It is true that there is no biological reason not to keep all the fish you can in a high lake, but if you do that you are just ruining the fishing for the next person. And you don't need to go to Japan to find places to pay to fish. We have plenty around here and none of them are the same as fishing a high lake. For one thing the fish are a lot smaller in high lakes but the experience is a lot better.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backcountry Blake
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 43 | TRs | Pics
Location: Issaquah, WA
Backcountry Blake
Member
PostTue Jul 12, 2005 10:50 pm 
Over my past 20 years of fishing I have decided that all of the fun is in catching the fish, and I don't really find much joy in killing and eating all the fish that make a lake or stream worth going to. If you like eating fish that much, go to the store before your fishing trip and stuff yourself. Theres no point in keeping every fish you catch "just cuz." I've been to so many places that have been fished out pretty much beyond recovery. For example, last summer the Cedar River was opened for the first time in 10 years and I caught over 20 fish the first evening it was open. I then went back a week later and there was not a trout to be seen. I just think people need to chill out with keeping so many fish. Catch and release is more rewarding anyway.

"There is a certain grim satisfaction to be derived from struggling upwards." -Eric Shipton
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
greg
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 1159 | TRs | Pics
greg
Member
PostWed Jul 13, 2005 2:37 pm 
But Blake, that Cedar River fishery was mandatory C and R. Do you think people killed 'em anyway, hooking mortality, or what?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backcountry Blake
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 43 | TRs | Pics
Location: Issaquah, WA
Backcountry Blake
Member
PostWed Jul 13, 2005 6:46 pm 
I think there were a lot of people unaware of the regulations.

"There is a certain grim satisfaction to be derived from struggling upwards." -Eric Shipton
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
greg
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 1159 | TRs | Pics
greg
Member
PostWed Jul 13, 2005 7:03 pm 
BB, I don't buy it. It had been closed for more than 10 years. If they knew it was finally reopened, they must have known the regs. Either they killed the fish anyway, or the fish went back down into the lake, or got bite-shy, or something else happened. Not that I disagree with your perceptions on the value of catch and release. I support that 100 percent, and myself only kill hatchery fish these days, and almost none in high lakes. Just something else going on with the Cedar I think.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backcountry Blake
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 43 | TRs | Pics
Location: Issaquah, WA
Backcountry Blake
Member
PostSun Jul 17, 2005 11:47 pm 
It is entirely possible that the fish in the cedar just got shy from heavy fishing, but at the same time I did find several snagged lures and tripple hooks in bushes and rocks. If I remember correctly it was single barless hooks only. I think some people might have heard it was open and just went for it.

"There is a certain grim satisfaction to be derived from struggling upwards." -Eric Shipton
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jamin Smitchger
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 673 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pullman
Jamin Smitchger
Member
PostWed Jul 20, 2005 11:09 am 
1. So what does it take for a population of trout to be naturally reproducing? How do you tell? Can small, high lakes have naturally reproducing populations or are they all pretty much artificial populations? 2. Here is an excerpt of my trip report to Dollar Lakes (above gold bar on US 2) which might apply to this topic. There are fish in the two largest of the North Star Pots, but since these lakes are only about 3/4 of an acre in size, I would reccomend that few if any fish be kept. The largest of the two pots is 10+ feet deep and has been pretty much fished out. I did not catch any out of this pot. I have heard rumors that these ponds have been stocked with fry, but I only kept one trout in order to preserve the fishery. I also fished in the two small pots about .20 miles E of point 5043. Both pots are located at about 4590 feet. The smallest of the two pots is only about 3-4 feet deep, but the largest is a beautiful green pool of water about 12 or more feet deep. Although this pond is only about 150 feet long and 120 feet wide, it could probably contain a small population of trout. Unfortunately, after I did not get any bites for an hour and I did not see any fish in the pot, I realized that it was fishless. Does anyone know whether the pot has even stocked in the past. I was really sad that it did not have any fish. Someone had written the letters EL with rocks at this pond so I know someone has been there before me and it is possible that the pond was probably just fished out. If so, it would be great if one of the trailblazers would stock it. What do you guys think about my observations. smile.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Overfishing? How many fish can be taken out of small lakes
  Happy Birthday Lead Dog, dzane, The Lead Dog, Krummholz!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum